Republicans still dominate the Supremes, you are correct. And they still dominate the media...especially talk radio.
Liberals have controlled all major media for decades, not to mention public education and the universities. Conservatives were only able to get their viewpoint heard via "new" media such as talk radio and the internet.
Been there, done that, you got refuted, let's leave it alone. All major media is backed by big corporations and they are NEVER liberal.
(Insert title here) It really depends on what we're calling dead. The Republican Party is not, in and of itself, dead. For the remainder of 2008 and on through elections in 2010 and 2012, at least, we can predict there will be a Republican Party. What some are declaring dead and over, and perhaps with good cause, is the Republican "brand". E. J. Dionne wrote today for the Washington Post: And his counterpart at the Post, Eugene Robinson, explained, We cannot pretend that conservatives will simply curl up in a ball and die, or hide themselves away in mysterious crypts to wait dreaming—like Cthulhu—to be called back to a world of waking nightmare. But pundits and commentators—who have a notorious track record with such transitions—seem to be jumping on a bandwagon, announcing the end of a tired policy outlook that promises only the most superficial prosperity. Some conservatives will adapt to what they perceive as the new way of things. Others will reassert older values until their lonely voices pass away to echo in memory, a paleontological footnote recalling a theory about how things once were. And the next generation of conservatives will try to pretend that their values are timeless, and that the founding fathers and the generations of humans back Christ and before believed what they believe, and yet it will be different from what yesterday's conservatives meant when they said the same things. Robinson suggests the current cycle is becoming a watershed year, like "1980, say, or 1968, or even 1932". Certainly, this is an era of marked dissatisfaction, but it is also one in which the public discourse seeks to appease the most undermining and contrarian elements of our society, pandering to supremacy and ignorance. While it may bring an ephemeral inspiring sensation to consider a major paradigm shift in American politics, we will only know it is so in hindsight. We should not rush to get our hopes up. In the end, though, a sinister ideology seems to have fallen into disarray, and its advocates may well be preparing to abandon ship. We can only hope, then, that if this is the case, our conservative American neighbors who bear genuine attachment to traditional values and the noble politics of the self so many would hope to promote might find a better central representation, a more appreciable hub around which to gather, than the Republican Party of recent decades. ____________________ Notes: Dionne Jr., E. J. "Brand on the Run". Washington Post. May 16, 2008; page A19. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503543.html Robisnon, Eugene. "The GOP's Ideas Deficit". Washington Post. May 16, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503161.html
The Republican party, like the Democratic party, evolves over time. Forced to realize that people are just not conservative on social issues the way they once were, the Republican party will be forced, rightly, to accept the fact that abortion, prayer in school, and gay marriage aren't the battles they want to fight, or can win. People in the USA do care about defense, low taxes and minimal government interference in their lives. The sooner the GOP wakes up and realizes this, the better for America. But, to the aforementioned point, the Republican party won't be recognizable ten years from now from the Republican party of Reagan. The same can be said about the Democratic party as well. ~String
The Democratic Party has already moved to the center. Pre Reagan it used to be the party of the wacky politically correct left wing. They learned that just does not fly. I hate to include Reagan in this mess. In my view the Repulicans were led astray not by Reagan but rather by the bushs. The biggest problem the Republicans face is one of credibility. They told America they were going to do one thing and did exactly the opposite. Tom Delay and his brothers and sisters were selling legislation to the highest bidder. They have been compared to acting like drunken sailors. And as a former drunken sailor, I can say we were always honest, even when drunk. That is something I cannot say of the Republicans who have controlled this country for more than a decade. Just one other thing I find facinating about the Republicans, they always like to paint themselves as the victim. Despite controlling the media, they are the victims of the media. They are the victims of the left wing...they have worked the politics of victimization very well over the last decade. But I don't think that dog is going to hunt anymore.
The Center? Not really. I think they have been dragged to the Right somewhat, on certain issues, because the Republicans have shifted even further to the Right in recent years, but neither party represents the Center, wherever it lies and whatever the term actually means, politically speaking. This is a partisan country, with divisive politics. Both parties lurch whichever way they are inclined to impress and maintain their bases and to differentiate themselves from the "other". And it isn't now? At least in certain places? During the Reagan days, the Cold War at least made Democrats behave responsibly so far as national defense is concerned. One can't find a Democrat like Sam Nunn nowadays. Socially speaking, the Democrats have ceded a lot of issues to their counterparts. For an interesting example of what I mean, take a look at Al Gore now and Al Gore then. Remember this is a guy whose wife crusaded against rap lyrics in the late 80s, early 90s. One simply can't imagine a Democrat doing something like that now. There are plenty of folks on this site who will howl and moan about Bush II being a continuation of Reagan, etc. Heck, I think Tiassa, a few inches up, posted some rubbish from Robinson saying something along those lines. But I'm with you. The fact there are some holdovers between the administration doesn't link them ideologically as much as people would like... Amen.
(Insert title here) Actually, Robinson's article was more about Dubya destroying the Reagan paradigm.
Republicans aren't dead, they're just smelling awfully funny. They smell like Democrats. Republicans aren't your worst nightmare.
Judging by the recent 0/3 record in these special elections. it seems very likely that the Republicans are going to take a hit in congress and the Senate this election cycle. The question is, does this indicate that the American people have suddenly decided they want to embrace the socialist agenda favored by the Left? I'd say no. Republicans simply did such a crappy job when they were in control, they veered so far from what they promised, no one believes anything they say anymore. Add to that, many figure it's time to give the other side a try. You might also note that these recent special elections as well as the losses in 2006 were to very conservative Democracts. Why should that be the case if the electorate is embracing the ideals of the Left?
Even more to the point-- what will it mean when the Congress is even more in the hands of the Dems this November whilst the presidency is in the hands of a Republican (as, I am predicting, it will)? ~String
This and that The Left won't have much power in the coming period of Democratic Party dominance in Washington. However, the people are favoring certain parts of a more liberal agenda. They want a health care solution. If that is a public-sector solution, they seem willing to take it because their myths about the private sector are eroding more severely than normal. Perhaps there is a solution that does not subsidize or socialize, but it will involve good faith on the part of private enterprise, and that's something that is sorely lacking these days. If they try the public solution, it is because they feel they don't have other routes to attempt. If that solution fails, they'll try something else. But for now, they're tired of transforming what they consider necessities into cronyist feed bags for the bourgeoisie. However, given the disappointing two-year run of the Congressional Democrats, I don't think the people are necessarily in love with the Party. In the end, they're compromising with what they consider reality in swinging toward the Democrats. • • • It means we're screwed? I don't know, actually. In Washington state, we had everything the Democrats needed to push an agenda: a legislative supermajority, the governorship, and a clamor for progressive issues. We got ... almost nothing. If the Dems manage a supermajority in Congress, we might wonder on what issues they'll use it. And if Harry Reid is still the Senate majority leader next year while McCain holds the White House, you can expect Congressional Democrats to continue to pander to the Oval Office, managing to finally make a stand just in time for the midterm election.
Ah. Many people want nurturing more than they want to prove to the universe they are able to achieve. This is supposed to be their election to be had? They'll be feeling so robbed, once again.
Speak for yourself little man.We rich people and the rulers are completely statisfied with the taxcuts and all....
Right, but that means he was operating within it to a certain degree, something a lot of conservatives would not agree with.
I tend to think that we're screwed either way... no matter who wins. Call me a pessimist. That shouldn't be so surprising. Look at the other states that are totally Democratic or Republican. States like Missouri, Georgia, Utah are solidly Republican and states like Illinois, Washington and Massachusetts are solidly Democratic and there is nothing but stalemate. Just as importantly, look at the states in which one party has (at least for the last 20 years) dominated the two main branches of politics: Ohio (R), Arizona (R), Connecticut (D), Florida (D), and Texas (R). Whether it's just serendipity or something else, I don't know, but you've seen a great deal of political progress in the past two years. Consider the two states I'm most familiar with are AZ and OH. When I was living in AZ it was totally dominated by the Republican party and nothing got done. The same in Ohio-- we have had a Republican governor and Republican state leg for the past 20 years and, except for the last two years of the Voinovich's governorship (he is a godlike figure in Ohio), the Republicans did nothing. Now, you have Democratic governors and Republican state legislatures, and for the first time in eons, the political progress in both states is breathtaking! In fact, I'd venture to guess that Napolitano is one of the best governors in the US right now, and perhaps EVER in AZ and Strickland isn't too shabby himself. The state legislatures are compromising and actually passing legislation that makes sense. A great example: It took a Democratic Governor, Janet Napolitano, to fix the border issue and push through legislation that targets the BUSINESSES that hire illegals. The result: for the first time in AZ history, the number of illegals is actually dropping. The border is more secure than it has ever been and the state has seen a drop in the number of uninsured illegals in jails and at ER's. The reason for this is obvious: the party gets elected and wants to hold on to its power by telling people it's trying, but can't get anting done for this-or-that reason. It doesn't really want to shake anything up because it likes the status quo. When you get a two party split, then things actually happen because nobody likes the status quo. A great example of this is the 2000 US elections. Republican president, Republican Congress and a solidly "conservative" judiciary. The results? Nada. Shit. Nothing. They might get it in the House, but I doubt it in the Senate. With only a third of the seats up for grabs, and most Republican ones actually secure, you can count on a filibustering Republican party to stop anything too liberal from passing to the floor for a vote. ~String
The biggest joke is that if McCain does not take the house, the conservatives will develop amnesia over the last eight years and blame the democrats for everything that Bush did to stuff the country into the toilet bowl
Well, that sounds like the exact same thing that the Dems to with their failures. So, they are a perfect match. ~String
